In June this year, Kirkwood Homes submitted an appeal to Angus Council after the local authority refused its planning application in March.

Kirkwood Homes submitted plans for 62 homes on the greenfield site at Panbride Road. The number of properties was reduced to 60 after a public consultation and discussions with Angus Council.

The proposals were controversial amongst Carnoustie residents, with the local authority receiving 115 letters – 46 of which raised objections and 67 supported the application.

Kirkwood Homes said hundreds of potential buyers had registered an interest, many of them looking for a first home. The firm hoped to be building on the site by next year. However, a Scottish Government reporter has supported Angus Council’s refusal by rejecting the appeal. Reporter David Buylla made a site visit to see the farmland the firms hoped to develop. His appeal findings reveal that he believes Angus councillors made the right decision.

He said: “Although the site lies immediately adjacent to the edge of Carnoustie, it is outside the settlement boundary and therefore in a countryside location.”

Local planning policy only allows residential development to take place in limited circumstances for such situations. None applied to the Panbride Road site, The Courier reports.

Mr Buylla added: “The appellant describes the South Angus housing market sub-area as dysfunctional and unbalanced due to there being a particular shortage of effective housing land within Carnoustie.”

Kirkwood Homes argued the majority of planned development is in Monifieth. However, the reporter revealed that a site at Pitskelly on the other side of the town where development is underway. It has permission for nearly 250 homes and 75 of those are due to be built in the next year.

The reporter added: “This does not suggest that any revision is required to my earlier conclusions on the adequacy of the effective housing land supply.

“As this proposal would involve residential development on prime agricultural land with housing for which no justification has been proven, it cannot be considered to be in the public interest, even if it could be demonstrated that there were no alternative sites within the settlement boundary.

“The proposal would not contribute to sustainable development.”